Samsung has requested the $1 billion Apple v. Samsung trial verdict be thrown out on claims that jury foreman Velvin Hogan's failure to disclose a previous lawsuit and bankruptcy led to a biased decision.

The Korean company contends that because Hogan didn't tell presiding Judge Lucy Koh of a personal bankruptcy filing from 1993 and a suit from former employer Seagate Technology, his presence in jury deliberations may have colored the final verdict, reports Bloomberg.

"Mr. Hogan's failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore," Samsung said. Also mentioned were statements Hogan made to media outlets after the verdict, which Samsung argues is a sign that he didn't answer the court?s questions ?truthfully? to ?secure a seat on the jury.?

In the filing, Samsung called its link with Seagate a "substantial strategic partnership," and noted the lawyer who filed the complaint against Hogan in 1993 is apparently married to an attorney who works for Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, the law firm representing Samsung in its California case against Apple.

When Hogan spoke with Bloomberg on Monday, he denied any misconduct and noted the court's instructions for potential jurors required they disclose any prior involvement in litigation over the past ten years. He said the Seagate suit fell outside of the specified time range.

"Had I been asked an open-ended question with no time constraint, of course I would've disclosed that," Hogan said. "I'm willing to go in front of the judge to tell her that I had no intention of being on this jury, let alone withholding anything that would've allowed me to be excused." The jury elected Hogan foreman due in part to his experience as an electrical engineer. He claims the only dissenting vote was his own.

As for the jury selection process, Hogan said, "I answered every question the judge asked me, and Samsung "had every opportunity to question me." Hogan said.

He was also surprised to hear that Samsung didn't know of the history referred to in Tuesday's filing, given that the lawyer cited in the claim is married to another lawyer working for the firm representing the company.

Hogan said he questions if Samsung "let [him] in the jury just to have an excuse for a new trial if it didn't go in their favor."

I am in no way defending Sadsong Samsung on this, but this story begs the question. Why in THE world did Hogan grant an interview in the first place? And why did he feel compelled to "spill the beans" during that interview. From what I have read, had that interview never taken place, Samsung would have nothing to say at this point.

If Samsung wanted to know about a case 19 years ago, then that's what the instructions should have been. They weren't. Therefore, he answered the question truthfully.

Seems like end of story to me.

If someone asked me if I had been arrested in the past ten years, I would answer "No." The question, "Have you ever been arrested?" would yield a different result. It seems like Samsung is trying to cover up for their own incompetence -- something they've been doing since before the verdict, mind you.

I find it UNBELIEVABLE that a multi-billion dollar international company can't figure out how to use Lexus/Nexus.

If Samsung wanted to know about a case 19 years ago, then that's what the instructions should have been. They weren't. Therefore, he answered the question truthfully.

Seems like end of story to me.

If someone asked me if I had been arrested in the past ten years, I would answer "No." The question, "Have you ever been arrested?" would yield a different result. It seems like Samsung is trying to cover up for their own incompetence -- something they've been doing since before the verdict, mind you.

I find it UNBELIEVABLE that a multi-billion dollar international company can't figure out how to use Lexus/Nexus.

THE NEXT QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF, A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS?

Samsung is really making a bad name for themselves right now. They lost and now they are digging dirt? Mr. Hogan is one vote! Really? I think I'm done with all Samsung products at this point. The latest Samsung ads putting down iPhone are just as silly, Apple is a brand, a lifestyle... Apple users want to be associated with the brand, get that in your heads Samsung. Whatever ad agency they have been using are retards. Apple haters likes to talks about specs and everything Android has for a "long" time, who the hell cares about what Android has on their phones? or Samsung phone in this case? Damn fools!

It just never ends with this company, does it? Think I'll sell my TV and get a different brand, just on these stories alone. They try to reverse eveything. Great going, gnusmaS.

I agree with you. I may seem petty, but I am going to be doing the same, maybe come Super Bowl time. My wife had been on a feature phone, a Samsung. When she was due to renew, the one feature phone she liked was another Samsung. She chose (with some gentle prodding) an iPhone 4S...

Following the bizzare comments from the guy post-trial, this was just a matter of time.

The whole failing to provide the feedback re:lawsuit just adds a whole lot more substance to their discussion.

He should have never been in the trial

Which is exactly what voir dire is for.

This is no one's fault but Samsung's "legal team" (to use the term loosely). They didn't do their job properly, and now they want someone else to take the fall. Sorry, but that's not how it works. "I effed up at trial, can you fix this for me judge?" isn't an actual post-trial argument.

This is no one's fault but Samsung's "legal team" (to use the term loosely). They didn't do their job properly, and now they want someone else to take the fall. Sorry, but that's not how it works. "I effed up at trial, can you fix this for me judge?" isn't an actual post-trial argument.

Well samsuck can be charged with jury tampering, if they knew this guy had lost a suit against seagates lawyer, the same lawyer for samsuck. If they didn't ask him to be excused, knowing his past, then after losing the case, claim a mistrial. Clear manipulation of the legal system. But it is samsuck. A company that has been guilty of bribing government officials, and politicians, paying suppliers to withhold parts from its competitors and stealing IP from its competitors and ignoring googles clear instructions NOT to add unlicensed IP onto their phones. What grubs, and they want anyone to believe they didn't know this before hand? Pigs…….. Make it $2 billion, just to make them pay attention instead of playing this charade.

This is called a "jury trial" and is meant to allow cases to be tried by a jury of one's peers, a random representation of the citizens of the jurisdiction. I hate to tell you, but this is EXACTLY how it's supposed to work. You see, what you thought you could do is come in, grab a dozen moronic Americans who knew nothing about patent law and get away with your shenanigans. But here we have a true American. One who's worked hard and been sued by big corporations. Someone who knew a thing or two about how this stuff works. It's not called "tainting", it's called "learning from experience" and passing that on to his peers on the jury.

I just can't even stand what you are doing and it is a mockery of the American judicial system and of justice everywhere. I know you are butthurt over losing and now you are denying that maybe, just maybe you run your business in a very unethical way. You rail against Apple and it's customers as "sheep", and yet that's exactly what you want this jury to have been. You wanted them to not think for themselves or apply their own wisdom and experience to the case.

So please Samsung, go back from where you came. We don't need your cheap knockoffs anymore.

Once again, Samsung reveals their own incompetence during the trial, since their own legal team had the means to know about this. Now they want to have the trial dismissed because they were incompetent. Nice try, but if the judge falls for this, we'll see defence lawyers increasingly adopt such a strategy of poisoning the trial, as Samsung clearly did at numerous times during this one (releasing evidence, unlicensed trial lawyers, and now keeping jurors in that they had something on all along).

Seems like a tenuous chain of connections. How likely is it that he knew about the lawyer from the old case being married to a partner of the law firm in the new case?

Is this man currently employed? What was his cost to be on the jury? How much length and cost would he go over that amount of money 19 years later?

Did Samsung only do this spelunking after getting a verdict against them? Seems when you're on a billion dollar case, one investigates jurors before the case gets too far.Edited by JeffDM - 10/3/12 at 4:52am

I'm more inclined to think Samsung knew about this guy from the start but kept him on the jury so they could it as a (weak) chance to get the case thrown out if they lost.Edited by SolipsismX - 10/3/12 at 6:47am

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Expect more of this from Samsung. The amount of money at stake is so high that they will not stop willingly.

I'm sure you are right. If Scamsung simply stuck to designing their own things none of this would have happened in the first place, no one to blame but themselves, oh and Google of course. I guess if all these companies hadn't been handed a free rip off of iOS in the first place ....

From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've owned them all.Long on AAPL so biased"Google doesn't sell you anything, Google just sells you!"

I am in no way defending Sadsong Samsung on this, but this story begs the question. Why in THE world did Hogan grant an interview in the first place? And why did he feel compelled to "spill the beans" during that interview. From what I have read, had that interview never taken place, Samsung would have nothing to say at this point.

Why is it wrong for this guy to give an interview but not wrong for Samsung to go to the media with information that the judge specifically asked not to be sent out?

Samsung's leak was a calculated move, but I think this guy's interview was more of an emotional response. The guy was the jury foreman on one of the most high profile patent infringement cases and was part of the jury that handed a substantial (subjective) penalty to Samsung. Of course he is going to bask in all the limelight he can get and milk the trial for all it's worth.